Some of the various nationalities have special rules in certain scenarios. It reflects something about the character of their armies. It affects the strategy and keeps the game from seeming the same all the time.

In some cases, it's a clear advantage -- for example, US Marines in the Pacific expansion get to order an extra unit. In other cases, it's a mixed blessing -- such as the French Resistance, who have some movement advantages but start with only 3 figures.

In the case of the Russian Commissar rule, which is intended to reflect inefficiencies in the Soviet command structure, it makes things more difficult for the player: He has to choose his card one turn in advance. Despite this handicap, the dug-in Russian player tends to win in several of the battles.

What good are they? They make a great scapegoat if the Russian player loses.

the other thing is, its required, not optional. So, no there are really no benefits (besides being a scapegoat), but it is trying to mimic the way things actually were. Also, the battles are playtested under these rules, so taking them away might upset the balance.

No problem, Guest. In any game, there's bound to be something puzzling or irritating at first. (In Monopoly, I find it to be the Income Tax square.) Personally, I find the the best revenge is to win with it.

By the way -- two other points:

1. While the scenarios say the commissar rule is used, the book has no way to enforce that upon players in the privacy of their own homes. If you're not comfortable with the chip and decide not to use it, it won't object.

2. While Memoir is a game with a profound respect for history and the various special national rules are intended to reflect certain historical aspects of those countries' forces, you're free to treat it as a more abstract game and use the special rules in a more utilitarian way. For example, you could (theoretically) use the commissar chip as a handicap for a stronger player in any scenario.

I understand the nature of this Russian structure of command which was employed during that time, and I'd like to utilize this when I play the Russian scenarios, but I'm still confuse with the rules.

I understand about having to pick a Command card and putting under the Commissar Chip which will be used in the next turn, what I'm confused with is the following:

"in lieu of playing the Command Card already committed under the Commissar Chip, the Russian player may choose to play from his hand a Recon 1 Command Card or a Counter-Attack Command Card... The Russian player may also play the Ambush Card from his hand per the standard rule."

Doesn't this contradict the rule of playing the card committed under the Commissar Chip since a player may choose to play a different card?

It adds a little reality to the game, since Political Commissar or not, no unit would just sit there and be attacked and not respond if they had opportunity. Only two cards are actually able to be played on the Russians turn:

RECON-1
COUNTER-ATTACK

The AMBUSH is played on the Axis turn in response to close a assault attack.

So the majority of the time it takes some deft planning and good defense to play the Russians.If you look at the AARs you will see that despite this limitation, the Russians still manage to squeak out more victories or get better odds than might be expected.

I find the Commisar rule very good. Makes me think alot more during my games.

THis is how I have thought about why you can play Recon 1 and Counter-attack from the hand.

Recon 1: This is the limit to what kind of reaction the Russian command structure at that time could come up with in a short time in response to enemy activity in another section than the Commisar had planned.

Counter-attack: Desperation within the troops being attacked by the enemy, have them ignore the Commisar and just launch an all out fight for their lives without thinking about the consequences. The Commisar then regaining control of his troops and ordering the order that was planned is reflected in the planned card under the chip being played the next turn.

What I find most annoying about commissars is that you have a hand size that is one smaller de facto. For example, you have 5 card hand size. One is under the chip. That means you actually have 4 cards to choose your next move from, you one of those four under the chip, play the card already under it and only draw a new one at the end of you turn.

You're always one card short. This is, imho, the biggest limitation to the commissar. Having to preplan your tactics is no big deal usually. The game is rather static and in 1 turn not much changes usually. The exception is medics and mechanics, which benefits most from proper timing.

What I find most annoying about commissars is that you have a hand size that is one smaller de facto. For example, you have 5 card hand size. One is under the chip. That means you actually have 4 cards to choose your next move from, you one of those four under the chip, play the card already under it and only draw a new one at the end of you turn.

You're always one card short. This is, imho, the biggest limitation to the commissar.

That's the point. Commissars were a political check / brake on orders being issued, which made the Soviet forces tactically less flexible and efficient. This gives paying the Soviets the correct historical flavour, but you can still win!

Of course you could always play scenarios after spring 1943 when the Commissar rule is no longer in play - the Soviets were then far better organised.